This Constitution (Draft Proposal) is written with the future in mind. It is intended to set forth a basic model, and fundamental principles and guidelines, for the nature and functioning of a vastly different society and government than now exists: the New Socialist Republic in North America, a socialist state which would embody, institutionalize and promote radically different relations and values among people; a socialist state whose final and fundamental aim would be to achieve, together with the revolutionary struggle throughout the world, the emancipation of humanity as a whole and the opening of a whole new epoch in human history–communism–with the final abolition of all exploitative and oppressive relations among human beings and the destructive antagonistic conflicts to which these relations give rise.

101 Comments

socialism might suck but look what capitalism has gotten us. denmark and sweden are happy. don't get confused we do not want a dictatorship, like denmark we can have a socialist democracy, we just need to vote in the right people. Marx predicted the failure of capitalism because of inequality.

Marx's predictions were completely wrong. He thought that capitalism would result in income accruing primarily to the owners of land and capital. In fact, it is the wages of unskilled workers that have absolutely exploded.

What are you saying? People are greedy. What's your point? Can you abolish greed in mankind? No. You can separate risk and reward and allow people to act upon their greed without facing the consequences -- which is what the government has done in the United States -- or you can protect private property rights and hold people accountable for their actions.

I like to compare large corporations to the balls from Katamari Damacy. they roll around, picking up anything they roll over, and get bigger, heavier, more powerful. that's not good for anyone other than themselves.
to me, the end of unrestricted capitalism is that you wind up with less and less companies, and in the end there is only one.

How exactly do they do that? Right now they are doing it in partnership with the STATE. The state grants them special legal privileges. Under capitalism, companies can only grow large when people voluntarily buy their products. To stay large, they have to keep producing products that people want. If people don't want their products and don't buy them, they lose their power. Consumers have the ultimate control.

Why the United States of America 's Federal Reserve is a private? The United States government why do not have the right to issue currency? If I have the right to issue currency, I don't care who make laws.

The Federal Reserve is a quasi-government agency. For all intents and purposes it is an arm of the government. The quote you reference is accurate, that if you can issue currency that is more powerful than making laws.

Therefore, the Chinese government has the right to issue currency. Through the issuance of currency, you can get money from the rich. This money can be used for people's livelihood. This is the Chinese government and the United States government the biggest difference.
Do you agree?

No. No government has the "right" to issue currency. Governments have no rights at all. Only people have rights. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor isn't a solution to anything. The division of labor and specialization in an environment of secure property rights is what brings more, cheaper, and better goods to market. This is what increases the general standard of living.

Just one quick illustration. We agree the Industrial Revolution marked the point at which the general standard of living suddenly catapulted and a much higher human population could be sustained, right? Well, at that time, if you took the wealth of the factory owners and divided it up amongst everyone, it wouldn't have made much of a difference at all. Production is what raises the general standard of living. Investments need to be made in the capital structure, which enables the creation of more consumer goods. As the capital structure builds up and we have more tools that enhance productivity, prices come down, quality goes up, and resources are directed toward their most urgent uses.

People understand that there is something wrong with the monetary system and the banking system, that the bailouts and the stimulus are helping privileged people but not regular people. This is all correct. Sadly, many people do not understand economics (or history) as it relates to these things, so a lot of anger is misdirected. But it is very healthy that people are upset about the system.

I don't think so. When people live more and more difficult, they will rise up against. This is a natural reaction. I don't think so. When people live more and more difficult, they will rise up against. This is a natural reaction. The fact is, the government put more money to the rich people. This is the real reason.

Although I can commiserate with the feelings of ChinaFeng(see initial three posts in this thread) and appreciate this site for allowing his views to be heard, it should be pointed out that openly calling for the dismantling of the current government comes perilously close to sedition. If one wishes to change the current federal government, there is a LEGAL means to do so and that is via a National Constitutional Convention(Article V). Likewise, almost all the states have state Constitutional Convention provisions in their state Constitutions. My point here being to choose one's words wisely
so as to avoid unnecessary legal problems.

I can't believe how wrong you are. If you think a national/global movement is going to occur because you want MORE government, you are DEAD WRONG. This is a movement to bring government back to the local level. More government involvement=POLICE STATE. Return to sound money and abolish the FEDERAL RESERVE and you will see true prosperity happen

War is violence and death. Revolution is war. If a new constitution is needed it will come into existence because everyone agrees it should, not because of murder or destruction. Change the foundation of thought and you can walk toward a better future. Crush opposing thought and you only walk into the dark.

There are 100 people to eat bread. Each day for up to 500. In capitalist society. Capitalist manufacturing 600 steamed bread. On the market. 20 rich man bought 500. Leave 100 to 80 poor. The rich can not eat so much. The poor do not have enough to eat. The rich would have a part to throw away. A small portion of said" charity and alms to the poor". Let the poor to be grateful for.
In socialist countries. The government will produce 500 steamed bread. Each of the 5. Not to throw away. Also do not need charity. Feed and reduce the waste of resources.

We have plenty of resources, very rarely do I walk into a store and there isn't enough bread. Why? Because this is a capitalist society, and if there is a demand for bread, then there is always enough bread.

The problem is not capitalism, but individual greed, and how our lack of rules let the greedy abuse the system. The same things have happened in China and Russia. Greed is greed, it doesn't matter where you are.

I will bet you anything, the average of all Americans are happier with their daily lives than those of China.

I use translation tools to communicate with you. I hope it can work.
I don't like the Chinese government blocked network. Not absolutely necessary. Now, people still can access google. Through Hongkong. www.google.com.hk

Yes. You don't understand chinese. Chinese life is not so bad as you imagine. The Chinese people are full of hope. Full of confidence. Chinese people only gripe is official corruption. But corruption situation is improving. The Chinese government attaches great importance to the senior officials of corruption. Every year many corrupt officials were arrested.

How does voluntary exchange (capitalism) kill people? It makes it possible for regular people to have living standards far higher than that of kings and queens only a short time ago, and for this planet to support the population that it does. Maybe you are criticizing corporatism or crony capitalism rather than actual capitalism, but if so, what makes you think that any kind of state is going to emancipate humanity? The health of the state is war.

Just want to point out that this country is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Democracy is a terrible idea. Democracy means that if there's three of us and two of us vote that we can take what's yours, we can. The idea of a constitutional republic is that everyone has certain rights that can never be violated by any person or group. If the world were a democracy there would simply me a massive redistribution of wealth from West to East. I think this is important to discuss since politicians are always yelling about democracy.

What I'm saying is that if the people did not allow the government to monopolize money and banking -- if they didn't buy the lies that it was necessary to keep the economy stable -- then it would be much, much more difficult for the government to raise the funds that it currently confiscates. This would go a very long way toward avoiding these things.

The idea that everyone has rights that can never be violated is a fiction though. Clearly they can ALWAYS be violated if the majority decides to ignore those rights. If the majority decides to follow a law protecting the minority it's because they support the idea, and thus would have voted for it anyway. If the majority doesn't like the idea, they would simply rewrite the law.

Ultimately you are right. The law has been perverted. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't distinguish between a democracy and a constitutional republic. We still have, at least in theory, a declaration of independence and a constitution to point to in support of individual rights, private property rights, etc.

That's fine. I don't believe we should have a democracy in the sense that every basic right should be up for vote each election cycle. Obviously we should have a rule of law which makes human rights violations harder to commit.

But if you look at many of the comments people have made around here they are proposing the creation of more, additional rights, such as those calling for a "Second Bill of Rights", so even though a lot of us use the word democracy we don't mean it in the sense that we should have no respect for the individual. The majority always has a personal interest in protecting the minority, since each one of us is a minority in some aspect of our lives.

This is bad news for the United States of america. I hope everything will be better. Otherwise, every other period of time there will be a time of economic crisis. Capitalism persisted for decades without the crisis, is because of the aggressive alleviates the problem. China is on the rise, economic invasion of China will not be sustainable. This is a big problem for the United States of america.

it's people like you that discredit fundamental movements for a better world. I highly doubt your from China, and i highly doubt your name is Feng. I'd bet anything your probably one of the few who are against this movement and come on here posting ridiculous crap to try and discredit it.

an easy example why capitalism works and socialism/communism/marxism are total and complete miserable failures.

look at a satellite picture of the korean peninsula at nighttime. the northern half will always be pitch black( wonder why or how that can happen) the southern half is always lit( wonder how and why that can happen).

And why is the emphasis on reducing the gap between rich and poor? Why not elevating the well-being of everybody? Keep in mind that you can easily reduce the gap by making everyone poor. Is that what you want? That has been the history of every socialist experiment so far.

Your current wealth, from many years of accumulation and to other national economic aggression. But the economic aggression will be increasingly difficult. The situation was changed. Obviously, China is on the rise, and the United States of America is in decline. If the situation persisted for ten years, you will see a different scene.

I don't think either pure capitalism or pure socialism will work, because they rely on absolutes. capitalism is greed, socialism is altruism. you can't completely eliminate one or the other. I guess it's like that one circle with the black and white swirl, the yin/yang symbol. capitalism gives people, I guess, a reason to work harder... socialism gives them a safety net for when things don't work. But apparently, socialism has the benefit of reducing the gap between rich and poor, and capitalism is the widening gap between rich and poor. Difference of the rich and the poor will lead to social instability.

Socialism removes the reward for excelling at work and for taking any risk with your savings to invest in a business. And with a safety net, people come to rely on it. Pretty soon there are no producers and all takers. That can't last, so then government, already having the power to run everything, PUTS people to work. They are then no better off than any other slave.

The gap between rich and poor narrows, because nobody except the bureaucrats get rich, and the poor economy they run limits the amount of resources they can take for themselves. But everybody ends up poorer.

The mind will not invent under compulsion.

You can't make similar observations about capitalism because pure capitalism has never had a chance to be tried. But in times when it was closest to pure, it resulted in a knowledge and wealth explosion that lifted mankind up out of the mud.

What motivation besides the hatred of envy would there be for caring how much someone else makes, if they earned it honestly? If people are able to live their lives in peace, dealing with each other honestly, why would there be social instability?

If you believe in socialism, you are perfectly free to join with others who want to participate VOLUNTARILY. However, a socialist STATE requires that the means of production be owned by the STATE, which means mass property rights violations. It also means the price system is interfered with and rational calculation is impossible. The number one lesson of the 20th century is that socialism, in all its forms, is a complete failure.

Wow, is that what you took away from the 20th century? Seems you have a very narrow view of what socialism is. Communities should be able to collectively take care of social needs,. fire department, library, public parks, public utilities,. cooperative owned and run businesses, universal health care systems,. these are all socialist structures,. and these should be all encouraged and further developed. The 20th century has shown over and over that some things should not be run for profits, some things are collective interests, that benefit the whole community. The rabid defenders of individualism and free market capitalism should not participate in ANY community initiatives as that is evil according to there broken dominator world view. Stop being so childish and greedy,. your fear of anything "socialist" shows only personal greed, and fear of community.

There is nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY socialism. This thread is advocating a SOCIALIST STATE. As I pointed out, such states have murdered almost 100 million of their OWN PEOPLE in the 20th century.

Capitalism is an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contract, whereas socialism is an institutionalized policy of aggression against property (or, more precisely, a transfer of property titles from people who have actually put scarce means to some use or who have acquired them contractually from persons who have done so previously onto persons who have neither done anything with the things in question nor acquired them contractually).

well there remains a huge gaping hole in the whole concept of ownership,. none of us can actually own anything. We are born naked with no property. the idea of ownership is an offshoot of applied force,. i.e. violence. Violence or the threat of violence is what creates ownership. All the land in the USA is stolen from the indigenous americans,. and still some people claim it all,. they have not actual right to it, they just occupy it and use violence to maintain control,. it really is a bit of a complex issue,.

Anyway, I am anti-state on both sides, anarcho-socialist. We need community based democracy,. decentralised and yet globally connected,. I was responding to the line "socialism, in all its forms, is a complete failure." to that I simply disagree.

as little as possible,. I once got down to just stuff I could carry in a small pack, and travelled around north america,. I went from Alaska to the south of Mexico,. mostly hitching, and working as I went,. but it is not about me. I struggle with the idea of land ownership, knowing that the Europeans took this land by conquest and lies. And this has been the way for all places,. Sure I would like a little plot to call my own,. well not really 'own' as I have trouble with the concept. I would like to build a house and grow food,. and be a steward of some land,. and work to regenerate biological capital through Permaculture,. and community building,. see; kitchengardeners.org and slowmoney.org also search Permaculture.

I was trying to make the point that you are the only person who can control yourself (lift your arm, etc.). All property is an extension of this. The government method of "ownership" you refer to is not ownership at all. Legitimate ownership can never come through violence. This is the political means. Justly acquired property can only be through the economic means: homesteading, production, or voluntary transfer of property titles. A neat little book on this topic is "The Philosophy of Ownership" by Robert LeFevre.

A final point. As a Draft Proposal for a Constitution for a new socialist state, this document focuses on and is primarily concerned with addressing the purposes, nature, objectives, and functioning of the government in this new society and does not attempt to discuss to any great depth the philosophical-ideological and political-strategic thinking regarding the necessity and basis for, and the means for bringing into being, such a state. For more background in relation to this, we strongly recommend the talks and writings of the Chair of our Party, Bob Avakian, as well as other Party publications, including: Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, But Humanity Can Soar Beyond the Horizon; Revolution and Communism: A Foundation and Strategic Orientation; Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA; and Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage: A Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

Nevertheless, it has been our purpose, and we have striven to the best of our ability, to put forward as clearly as possible the basic principles that would be embodied in a Constitution for a new socialist state in North America, and much of the specific ways in which these principles would be applied, in order to enable and encourage people to engage, in a serious and substantive way, with the vision that is put forth here of this new socialist state and the potential for a radically different society and world that it represents. For, again, that is our purpose in publishing this Draft Proposal: to stimulate, as broadly as possible, such serious and substantive engagement with this Draft Proposal, and vigorous discussion and debate about what it puts forward as the kind of society and world to be not only imagined but actively struggled for.

The term "New Socialist Republic in North America" has been chosen not because that would necessarily be the name of such a socialist society, brought into being through revolution in this part of the world (the formal name would of course be decided at the time of the actual establishment of such a socialist state); rather, this term is utilized in order to emphasize that this is intended as a proposal for the Constitution of a socialist state as it would have been newly brought into being, in the first stages of its existence, with the victory of the revolution that would have put an end to the imperialist USA and replaced it with a new, revolutionary society on the road of socialism. And, while we have sought to indicate here, as much as possible, the basic principles, institutions, structures, and processes which would characterize this new socialist society, and particularly the functioning of its government, much of the specific features of this would naturally be influenced by the situation that existed at the time of the establishment of this new socialist state–including factors such as the size of the territory that had been liberated from the imperialists (and other reactionaries) and consolidated as the territory of the new socialist state, and what overall situation prevailed, particularly in terms of the struggle between revolutionary and reactionary forces, in this part of the world, and in the world overall, at the time of the founding of this new socialist state. Some of this is spoken to in the Constitution (Draft Proposal) that follows, but there are clearly aspects of such a future situation which can be anticipated only in broad terms, and others which may arise which cannot at all be anticipated now.

To work for this objective–to hasten while awaiting the emergence of these necessary conditions, with the goal of revolution and ultimately communism clearly in mind–is the strategic orientation of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. And, as one important part of giving life to and carrying out this strategic orientation, we are publishing this "Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (Draft Proposal)": as a contribution to a process in which growing numbers of people are seriously considering and grappling with whether, how, and in what form there could be a real alternative to the present capitalist-imperialist system and the unspeakable suffering and depredations it imposes on the great majority of people in the world, on humanity as a whole, as well as on the environment and the webs of interconnected species which inhabit this earth; to provide a more concrete sense of the basic nature, structure and functioning of the socialist society, and its government, envisioned here, and the principles and objectives underlying and guiding this; and to enable people to see, sharply outlined, what is in reality the radical difference between the society and government envisioned here and the capitalist-imperialist system which currently rules in this country and exercises domination over the world as a whole, with such terrible consequences.

In order to bring this new socialist state into being, it would be necessary to thoroughly defeat, dismantle and abolish the capitalist-imperialist state of the USA; and this in turn would only become possible with the development of a profound and acute crisis in society and the emergence of a revolutionary people, in the millions and millions, who have the leadership of a revolutionary communist vanguard and are conscious of the need for revolutionary change and determined to fight for it.